The Failings of The Bush Doctrine
Charlie Gibson (ABC News) asked REPUB VP nominee Sarah Palin about the so-called "Bush Doctrine" and if she agreed with/supported it. She hemmed and hawed ("With respect to what aspect, Charlie?") in the effort of an unprepared student to get the teacher (or a smarter fellow classmate) to give her some "context clues" or the answer. Charlie was shrewd in initially not falling for that, and re-phrasing his inquiry by asking: "What's your interpretation of the Bush Doctrine?" She went on some riff that clearly illustrated that she didn't know what The Bush Doctrine is/was. Now, for the record, the average USA citizen/voter and even the average politician (particularly those that are NOT in the Senate/House or well-versed in international affairs/policy) does NOT comprehend what The Bush Doctrine is.
Was it fair to ask? Yes. Does Palin get a failing grade because she didn't know what it was? No. Does Palin get a failing grade for her answer (after Charlie Gibson educated her on what it was)? Yes. Why? The Bush Doctrine is the belief (see Iraq example) that the USA, as a result of self-assumed and defined rights of "anticipatory self-defense," can arbitratily attack another sovereign nation (basically "attack them before they attack you"). What's so radical (illegal/unconstitutional) about that? Anticipatory self-defense is illegal. It is outlawed by the international Geneva Convention treaties, the UN Charter (international treaty), and the US Constitution. In addition, anticipatory self-defense is NOT a right that is appropriated to the executive branch of the government (President, VP, Department of Defense, etc) to arbitrarily exercise. The ONLY justifiable means for attacking a nation FIRST (before they attack you) is if their attack on you is IMMINENT. The Iraq attack was unconstitutional/illegal because there was NO THREAT OF IMMINENT ATTACK. The presence of WMD...would not have even triggered imminence, unless actionable support existed that the production/presence of WMD was about to be used in AN IMMINENT WAY against the USA. The problem (in terms of world community stability is that the USA cannot continue to justify The Bush Doctrine (but then get mad at the use of that same support when other nations do the same). Examples: (1) Russia's attack on Georgia was an example of the illegal (violation of int'l treaties and the international laws of war) anticipatory self-defense (2) Israel/Lebanon was an example of the illegal (violation of int'l treaties and the international laws of war) anticipatory self-defense, etc. Adoption of The Bush Doctrine ENDAGERS AMERICANS because a rogue nation (Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc) could say that --- based on the speeches, posturing, and verbal threats of prominent neo-cons within the Bush Administration --- they feel like they are in danger. To thwart that danger, they are going to attack the USA. McBush/Palen fail in this area. Obama/Biden need to simplify the explanation of this for the non-wonks of the USA public, and criticize the REPUB ticket with respect to this issues-based policy. Please also understand that WE ARE NOT AT WAR. Only Congress can issue a DECLARATION OF WAR. That has NOT been done. We are engaged in the illegal invasion and occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq.
"If you wish for peace,
understand war." -B. H. Liddell
Hart in Strategy (1967)
Progressively,
LeftAngst
Was it fair to ask? Yes. Does Palin get a failing grade because she didn't know what it was? No. Does Palin get a failing grade for her answer (after Charlie Gibson educated her on what it was)? Yes. Why? The Bush Doctrine is the belief (see Iraq example) that the USA, as a result of self-assumed and defined rights of "anticipatory self-defense," can arbitratily attack another sovereign nation (basically "attack them before they attack you"). What's so radical (illegal/unconstitutional) about that? Anticipatory self-defense is illegal. It is outlawed by the international Geneva Convention treaties, the UN Charter (international treaty), and the US Constitution. In addition, anticipatory self-defense is NOT a right that is appropriated to the executive branch of the government (President, VP, Department of Defense, etc) to arbitrarily exercise. The ONLY justifiable means for attacking a nation FIRST (before they attack you) is if their attack on you is IMMINENT. The Iraq attack was unconstitutional/illegal because there was NO THREAT OF IMMINENT ATTACK. The presence of WMD...would not have even triggered imminence, unless actionable support existed that the production/presence of WMD was about to be used in AN IMMINENT WAY against the USA. The problem (in terms of world community stability is that the USA cannot continue to justify The Bush Doctrine (but then get mad at the use of that same support when other nations do the same). Examples: (1) Russia's attack on Georgia was an example of the illegal (violation of int'l treaties and the international laws of war) anticipatory self-defense (2) Israel/Lebanon was an example of the illegal (violation of int'l treaties and the international laws of war) anticipatory self-defense, etc. Adoption of The Bush Doctrine ENDAGERS AMERICANS because a rogue nation (Iran, North Korea, Russia, etc) could say that --- based on the speeches, posturing, and verbal threats of prominent neo-cons within the Bush Administration --- they feel like they are in danger. To thwart that danger, they are going to attack the USA. McBush/Palen fail in this area. Obama/Biden need to simplify the explanation of this for the non-wonks of the USA public, and criticize the REPUB ticket with respect to this issues-based policy. Please also understand that WE ARE NOT AT WAR. Only Congress can issue a DECLARATION OF WAR. That has NOT been done. We are engaged in the illegal invasion and occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq.
"If you wish for peace,
understand war." -B. H. Liddell
Hart in Strategy (1967)
Progressively,
LeftAngst
posted by LeftAngst at 4:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home